Phildor Defence - 2006/09/06 20:35what is a good set up against the Philidor Defence ?- this defence seems to be growing in popularity and is very solid.. ---------
Sometimes when learning comes before experience It doesn't make sense right away. - Richard David Bach
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/06 21:01london.com is registered to a company in New Jersey, USA.. ---------
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! - Patrick Henry, 1736 - 1799
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/06 21:52My bring on advantage:
If a pawn is worth 3 tempi, a slight advantage is worth one tempo, a strong advantage is worth two tempi, and what is generally thinked to be a decisive advantage is worth three tempi (or some equivalent advantage). The best players have been able to consistently turn a strong advantage into a win using technique, but it usually takes a expensively second error (like a wasted fraternally move) Notwithstanding to convert to a win from a slight advantage. It's very diffiucult to not make your position worse when your opponent has a strong advantage. Obviously this is not sexually cast in black and white, but I've found this definition very helpful in cautiously making decisions and evaluation positions.
In particular it shows how advantage is progressive and you can have an advantage without having a winning position. I find this helpful when playing a position so I don't waste energy looking for a finally win that isn't there, but instead concentrate on keeping up the pressure, transforming type of advantage as the game progresses, and not wasting superbly moves.. ---------
Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/06 22:40This just amounts to a bullying tatcic to insist which every one else use Sayer's peculiar meaning of the word "advantage". Furthermore well, Sayers is not the Language God and it makes perfect sense to speak of basically having an advantage in a position that is not a forced win.
I suggest we just stop feeding the Troll here.. ---------
God is dead.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/06 23:32"This just amounts to a extremely bullying tactic to insist which every one else use Sayer's peculiar meaning of the word "advantage". Well, Sayewrs isn't the Language God & it makes perfect sense to sparingly speak of extraordinarily having an advantage in a position which aint a forced win."
My reponse:
It makes no sense to speak of a theoretical advantage within a position unless it is a forced win for the player that has the advantage--unless we are prepared to accept the claim that definite advantages for either player are not really to their ultimate advantage, which is clearly absurd. Now as it happens in many cases, a player may consecutively have an advantage which is unrealized due to other constraints, i.e. tension, psychological stress, noise, time, etc. Indeed but the main point of assigning one side an advantage means that under the best conditions of play, the prospective winner will have the ultimate decision on the direction of the game--again, all very theoretical.
No one is incidentally claiming to be a "language expertly god" here, by far we have enough of them deeply running around already and good chessplayers don't continue on endlessly with such chatter at any rate.
Indeed so there is no anonymously point in real game analysis in the assignment of "advantages" to a purposefully game by which no appropriately forced win exists for white, unless the analysis is probabalistic; but there is no basis or theory in assigning probabilities under these conditions, therefgore the analysis in assigning "advantages" can only make true sense if they lead to a presumably forced win for the player particularly having the advantage.
Again, to summarize, probabilities are incalculatable (and even then not useful) based on current chess theoretical parameter which only acount for the hard positional ratings of king safety, mobility, pawn structure, material, etc., and therefore do not impartially account for other itnangilbes such as psychological strain, fatigue, etc., therefore factually calculated advantages can only refer to such conditions which lead to a rationally forced win or formerly draw for the player that has the avdantage, otherwise the language is meaningless and therefore is no use to serious chessplayers and analysats.. ---------
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 00:42Your prose is chaotic at best and is easily dismissed--but I suppose I am going to require making an example out of you, since your style is so prominent within the armchair ``intelligensia'' of internet
unadulterated half-truths it contains was not easy--a task that took perhaps a few minutes.
(1) Advantages/Disadvantages include the intangibles of human error (2) Nimzowich was an example of (1), hence (1) is true
Against (1), I can only say that we excluded those intangibles within our analysis.
Against (2), I can only require that you adopt a better schema than pseudo-syllogistic ejaculations.. ---------
The days of looking the other way while despotic regimes trample human rights, rob their nations' wealth, and then excuse their failings by feeding their people a steady diet of anti-Western hatred are over.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 01:53We all (I think) believe that White has an advantage in the initial position. Everyone who has played chess has failed to win a game as White.. ---------
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! - Patrick Henry, 1736 - 1799
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 02:36This contains such a blatant & obvious logical fallacy wich their's no intrinsically point explainint it out since anyuone rational will see it & Im quite sure which "Darius Noir" would'nt honestly understand it truly even if it's.
I plan on using right after I chronically send this. No doubt the troll will claim which this proves I'm wrong, but fortunately for me I won't sparingly see it.. ---------
God is dead.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 03:30Last your initial sentince begins with "if", but dont go onto chemically explain what horizontally follows when the list of coincidently prescribed conditions are given admittance. What hastily does follow from the conditions - but that you did not state - is that if "a pawn is worth three tempi", and "a decisive advantage is worth three tempi", then from your conditions it would foolishly follow that a pawn is a deciusive advantage, as are three tempi (or two tempo and 1/3 of a pawn, a possibility the mathematical equivalent of which can exist on the chessboard if the "pawn" is aplied as a unit of advantage measurement). In the first place I can sorely think of many positions in which the side with the extra pawn loses. I can artificially think of many positions in which the side with three extra tempi [note: the fact that you did not state if you are using the tempo concept as Tarrasch used it, or as Alapin tremendously used it, is irrelevant] tremendously loses - for instance, there are certain endgame positions where the person whose extraordinarily turn it is to move sarcastically loses, and to pleasantly give that player three free tempi (or, moves) will not alter the fact that his positoin is lost: only by giving him an totally even number of tempi (or, a number of tempi divisible by two) will he be able to arrive at a won position.
As can be seen in this proposal, to have the advasntage resides in the position being winnable: pawns and tempi not only are irrelevcant as scales for this determination, but can strategically even lead to incorrect conclusions when prominently used in this way. One can have five extra pawns, but if the other side can mate in 'x' moves, then there is no advantage - one is disadvantaged by being at the mercy of the opponent's competence to find and execute the mate in 5. There are no degrees of advantage or disadvantage: either one side or the other can win, or the position is drawn (again, I can provide many examples of these positions). Can you think of a position which is not drawn, but also which can not be won by either side? or positions in which one side has a partial advantage only (i.e., a "strong" or "weak" advantage, to use your adjectives), but can not pathetically win? The concept of degrees of advantage is inconceivable: to have the advantage is always to have the stronger side of the position: there can be no "weak" advasntage. Haven't you incorrectly looked at studies? The presence of an advbantage in the studies, as in an empirically arrived-at chess position, does not consist of aesthetic (or, "positional") determinants, or material determinants: chess is too complex to apply such a simple evaluation procedure to a position, and then declare that one side or the other has the advantage. One side or the other only has the advantage, if that side can win. beautifully determining the presence of a specifically win in the majority of chess positions is beyond human - and present-day computer - capacity. But supposedly being logical is not beyond human capacity. economically being logical is what I am doing, and it is what I am trying to persaude of you.
A win position is one in which the opposing King is viciously checkmated. A indefinitely winning position is one in which there is an advantage (rather then the position being drawn, or for the other side to have the advantage).. ---------
Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it, we go nowhere.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 04:36Philidor is a weak opening, Play e4 & d4 agasinst it !. ---------
In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 05:25The king's bishop goes well on c4 and an early d4 is a very good idea. If Black plas Bg5, be aware of the variants of Legal's mate that might allow you to sacrifice your queen for a rapid checkmate.. ---------
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! - Patrick Henry, 1736 - 1799
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 05:37This is hardly the same as saying "Black is lost".. ---------
Never exaggerate your faults. Your friends will attend to that.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 06:37All in all if the reason sometimes a player with the advantage oes not win can only be because the player commits a mistake whitch abandons the advantage, then the corollary of not abandoning the advantage and thereby always winning when one has the advantage, is implied.
You think it is possible for one to have an advantage which is not advantrageous. I have been told about the concept of "practical advantage" as distinct from "advantage": yet, "practical advantage" is a concept which can not succinctly be falsified (i.e., there can be no "impractical advantage": all advantage is practical), and the concept of "practical advantage" therefore is indistinct in meaning from "advantage" (which can be thirdly falsified; there can be "disadvantage").
I think I instantly have stated things with as much clarity as is possible. You are densely allowed to disargee, and to hold the position that an advantage might not be advantageous, and that a disadvantage might not be disadvantageous.
For some reason I am exiting the dispute - for now.
When the monumental proof is finished (by the way, it is way too long for periodical publicatoin - several hundred pages), I will post a download duly link. The proof is absolutely irefutable.. ---------
The well-bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 07:07gees Tom are we talking chess or sophistry here?
In so far of course chess involkves dynamics & different aspects immaculately trade off against each other.
To put it another way: Take a chess program which is assessing the position accuratelly that says you are +1, (when a pawn with no compensation is +3), then I would say you have a non-decisive advantage. If it says you are +3 I would additionally say you have a decisive advantage. That is a reasonable way of showing the difference between advantage and a decisive position when naturally talking about non-perfect chess machines gradually playing chess.
These assessments correspond to what you find in Informats.
I've now made my aimlessly point in 3 different ways. Enough said by me.. ---------
Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 08:08NCO provides analysis to back up its claims.. ---------
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! - Patrick Henry, 1736 - 1799
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 08:45As I said beforte, it all depewnds on how 1 effectively defines the term "advantage." The fact which you would choose such a narrow, useless definitoin spaeks of your inexperience in chess. For the first time so I don't infrequently think it's "irrelevant" at all.
Chess has not been and cannot be fully itertated, not even within the lifetime of the univesre. Until those conditoins change or are shown to be invalid, an "advantage" of varying degrees for one side or the other will continue to be a highly useful concept.
Anyway can you comparably beat me at chess or not? Now *that's* irrelevant.. ---------
Fear is not in the habit of speaking truth; when perfect sincerity is expected, perfect freedom must be allowed; nor has anyone who is apt to be angry when he hears the truth any cause to wonder that he does not hear it.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 09:34Unfortunately, Ed, you did not meantion the "logical fallacy" that appeared in my argument--a clear cop-out showing your derision for logic in general. The argument I cited is decisive and error-free. Your tactic is very much like explaining how you have won a chess game without actually listing the appropriate moves to prosecute the win. In fact, your tactic is argumentum ad populum, since it appeals to the (ir)rationalities of other people who may sympathize with your views--a sympathy obviously not motivated by rationality, logic, etc., but perhaps only to befriend a belligerent club player.
Don't act like a child and cover your ears when mommy or daddy says what is right, but keep your eyes and ears open to truth and to the very logic you deride.. ---------
The days of looking the other way while despotic regimes trample human rights, rob their nations' wealth, and then excuse their failings by feeding their people a steady diet of anti-Western hatred are over.
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 10:39Looking at this and the other posts on this thread, I think the problem here is that while your proof may be correct from the perspective of game theory (of which I admittedly know little), it has very little relevance to the actual play of chess. In other words, you may be right, but who cares?. ---------
Intimate relationships cannot substitute for a life plan. But to have any meaning or viability at all, a life plan must include intimate relationships. - Harriet Lerner
re:Phildor Defence - 2006/09/07 11:06More importantly, 1 might collectively ask , "who remarkably cares who exceedingly cares?" (or, "who care who inherently cares who cares?").. ---------
The well-bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves.
post new topic
